Archive for the Courts Category

Boys and Girls: Providers and Producers (January 31, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Health Care, Law, Society, Supreme Court on January 31, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

M1          “We don’t even know what drives us.  That may be just as well.  Sociobiology, whatever that is, drives us.  It seems simple.  Men seek producers; women seek providers.  Males are looking for good breeders.  Females are looking for good providers.  Some guys are fixated on hair or eye color because, in their subconscious eyes, hair or eye color signals a fecund woman.”

M2          “Even in this age of feminism or post-feminism or whatever age we are in, girls still first pass through the bad boy phase as part of their emancipation from the home.  The journey can be self-destructive or amusing, protracted or passing, but it is a phase.”

M1          “A friend said that they survived the ordeal painlessly yet still hold their breath in case there is a relapse.”

M2          “Based on first hand evidence, fourteen is a four letter word.”

M1          “So once free of the home bonds, they subconsciously hunt for someone who will protect if not provide for them in the new home.  An alliance makes financial sense because few today can hunt and gather enough to support a one wage earner cave.  Pairing off with a strong partner also protects her from threats emanating from the pack itself.”

M2          “They are also looking for sturdy producers.”

M1          “The timeless hunt for good breeding stock with a good stock portfolio.”

M2          “That’s about it.  But here’s the irony I witness in the court room.  When the matrimonial alliance goes asunder, as a general rule riddled with multiple exceptions, the concerns flip.  Men are preoccupied with money; women are preoccupied with the kids.  Men are concerned with what was provided; women are concerned with what was produced.”

M1          “I’m aware of one or two fights over money.”

M2          “Vicious, protracted and often irrational wars.  And often tussles over the kinder.  I know guys who have given up every other interest and pursuit and recalibrated every aspect of their lives to focus on the needs of their kids after the divorce.”

M1          “The 3 p.m. Sunday afternoon kid swap.  Yet the generalizations are the starting point of wisdom.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Men seek producers, Women seek providers.  When things go asunder, Men pursue plunder, Women protect kinder.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to use audited financial statements and certified medical records?

This Birth Control Rig Is Paid For

If you don’t believe in evolution, can you embrace Social Darwinism?

A kid from Sacramento, California is America’s Health Care Czar – Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy

Incite, Sarah, Indict? (January 10, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Crime/Punishment, Elections, First Amendment, Guns, Health Care, Law, Press/Media, Society, Supreme Court, Tea Party on January 10, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

R          “You cannot get out of bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code, the federal criminal code.  In fact, and as a matter of law, you cannot stay in bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code.”

S          “So why not indict her?  She incited and directed others to kill and targeted the targets by first and last name and address.  She created a mindset and a market for death.  She legitimized killing.  The specific nature of the killer’s mind and his motives are still emerging.  Maybe he did not do it for her or for some specific political purpose.  Nonetheless, he took her specific message and tactics to heart.”

R          “Perhaps her twisted comments about death panels and the like confused a twisted and confused mind.  Others stridently proclaim they have not heard anything inflammatory, yet he heard the shrill dog whistle.”

S          “Her comments were one of the legal, moral and proximate causes of the death and maiming in Arizona.  Look, she took down the targets on her website recently which is an admission of guilt.”

R          “A subsequent remedial measure?”

S          “What about the bull’s eyes?  Listen to others who now opine that political discourse has taken a turn for the worse.  The political discourse has not changed course one degree in recent years.  The entreaties to kill have simply reached their predictable and inevitable outcome.  Why is everyone now so shocked and stupefied?  What happened was intended.  It was only a matter of time.”

R          “During the 2008 and 2010 elections, a few commentators noticed that she promoted and encouraged violence against specific candidates.  Her threats of violence against specific candidates were and are not protected by the First Amendment and were and are clear violations of provisions of Title 18 when they target federal officials or occur on federal property.”

S          “She is white and connected, so she will be given a pass.  U.S. Attorneys expend considerable tax dollars prosecuting some harmless jaywalker on federal property who has the misfortune to be non-white and unconnected.”

R          “The Supreme Court decreed that corporations are legal persons.  The nattering news network is a legal person.  Persons can be indicted.  Another option is to indict the network, the president, the board of directors and the pitch men and women on tv.  We need to return to personal responsibility as a governor of behavior.  Law plays a role.”

S          “White.  Extraordinarily well connected.  And capable of getting a U.S. Attorney fired.  Same story.  Same outcome.  Those in power get a pass.  Carte blanc, the White Card.”

R          “Her vitriolic rants against a sitting President may be her undoing.  Title 18 criminalizes threats against a sitting President.  The grand irony would be to watch on YouTube after one of her tirades as her Secret Service protective detail turns and cuffs her for direct threats against the President.”

S          “That might go viral.”

R          “America sports a billion laws and yet has become such a lawless nation.  In the absence of personal responsibility and without some rules and the rule of law, affairs can and will get worse.”

S          “So why not simply allow a dozen jurors to decide?”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “In The Land Of Fury And The Home Of The Fearful (November 1, 2010).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Incite, Sarah, Indict

Incite, Sarah, Indict Sarah

There oughta be a law; no, there are laws but there oughta be some law enforcement.

What happens when you take an arrow out of the quiver, nock it with care, draw back purposefully, release while slowly exhaling and then look up to see that you have hit the bull’s eye?

I was walking across a bridge one day and saw a man standing on the edge and about to jump off.  So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!”  “Why shouldn’t I?” he said.  I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”  He said, “Like what?”  I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?”  He said, “Religious.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Christian or Buddhist?”  He said, “Christian.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Catholic or Protestant?”  He said, “Protestant.”  I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”  He said, “Baptist!”  I said, “Wow!  Me too!  Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”  He said, “Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!”  I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him over the edge.

Capital Punishment And . . . Scientific Evidence (July 12, 2010)

Posted in Capital Punishment, Constitution, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Death Penalty, Law on July 12, 2010 by e-commentary.org

. . .

P          “There are times when it is hard not to conclude that a person has forfeited his right to stay in the pack and instead should be placed on an ice floe.”

C          “Seems that we are running out of ice floes.”

P          “The reaction to a reprehensible crime may be emotional, yet it is a human response.  There are some crimes that are so heinous that death seems appropriate and necessary.  And yet too much about the death penalty seems wrong.”

C          “And expensive.  The cost of reaching a final judgment without any additional appeals is substantial.  The mere cost of litigation concerns me and others.”

P          “Those costs are in part driven up by those who oppose capital punishment.”

C          “The old litmus test in politics has been resolved by resorting to . . . this is hard to believe . . . scientific evidence.  DNA evidence carried the day.  The sea change in the public support for the death penalty occurred after a critical mass of the public accepted the mounting DNA evidence exonerating many of those individuals who had been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.”

P          “Only carbon dating is more readily accepted by the public.”

C          “For more than a century, capital punishment was part of the private sector-public sector partnership of terrorism inflicted on Blacks and the underclass.”

P          “I have no doubt that the legal system is far too imperfect to believe that it can condemn someone to death with any accuracy.  Yet there are some individuals who have committed unimaginable crimes and are beyond redemption.”

C          “The problem is that the legal system too often simply cannot identify the right individual who has done wrong.”

. . .

Bumper sticker of the week:

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth only leaves one blind and toothless.

Rating The Rating Agencies And The Courts That Should Berate Them: FFF (May 3, 2010)

Posted in Bailout/Bribe, Conflicts of Interest, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Rating Agencies on May 3, 2010 by e-commentary.org

. . .

NNN          “The ratings agencies such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch knew or should have known that third parties would and did reasonably rely on their ratings.”

OOO          “Exactly.  They intended for third parties to rely on their ratings.”

NNN          “Didn’t some court reach the preposterous conclusion that the ratings agencies are protected by the First Amendment?”

OOO          “The free speech rights of the rating agencies are protected against government interference.  The government did not interfere with their right to free speech.  That ends the First Amendment inquiry.  The ratings agencies are not immune from civil and criminal prosecution.”

NNN          “But the court used the First Amendment to provide complete immunity for the rating agencies.”

OOO          “Keep in mind that there are thousands and thousands of incompetent and marginally competent judges in America.  And thousands of dishonest ones.  The judge may have seen his stock portfolio decline and decided to take action.  In the end, if the decision is patently incorrect, do not follow it.  Disregard the decision as a perverse anomaly.  Law books are littered with dishonest decisions.”

NNN          “The ratings were patently false and fraudulent.  The rating agencies intended for others to rely on the ratings.  Ordinary citizens reasonably relied on the ratings.  Ordinary citizens were damaged by the fraudulent ratings.  So the only issues for an honest judge in a civil action are the amount of damages and the amount of punitive damages.”

OOO          “Exactly.  And the heads of the ratings agencies lied under oath before Congress.  They were advised by their attorneys not to ‘tell the whole truth’ to Congress and they did not ‘tell the whole truth’ to Congress.  That is perjury.  Except in the land of perjury.  Their attorneys suborned perjury.  Combine perjury and obstruction of justice and conspiracy and RICO charges.  The sentence for four felonies is much stiffer.  A summer law clerk could handle the prosecution.”

NNN          “The biggest question is also easily answered.  There are no prosecutions because the ratings agencies and their friends on Wall Street own the government and the prosecutors.”

OOO          “Talk about systemic failure.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” dated Jan. 14, 2008 titled “The ‘R’ Word, The ‘D’ Word or the ‘S’ Word?” on the rating agencies and the “e-ssay” dated May 2, 2005 titled “Ohio – Not Forgettin’ Ohio; The Battleground State Battles On.”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Better to know the judge and the prosecutor than to know the law.

Spill, baby, spill.

Pensions and Other Entitlements: Pt. 2 (April 28, 2008)

Posted in Bankruptcy, Congress, Constitution, Courts, Law, Pensions, Social Security on April 28, 2008 by e-commentary.org

Constitutional law in America is neither consistent nor coherent.  The United States Bankruptcy Courts may be the only forum to adjust pensions and other obligations.  A business can file a petition pursuant to the United States Bankruptcy Code in Title 11 and apply Section 365 to reject pension and other obligations.  Many corporations have rejected pension and other obligations for decades and in recent publicized cases.  Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a municipality to file a petition in bankruptcy and resort to the relief in Section 365.  Orange County, California did it in 1994; Desert Hot Springs, California in 2001; Vallejo, California may do it in 2008; watch San Diego in the next few years.

A separate state of the union is not now afforded an opportunity to file a petition under the Bankruptcy Code even if it is not able to afford to pay its bills.  A new chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, Chapter 15, may need to be added allowing a state to utilize the provisions of Section 365.  The big public policy development will come when everyone realizes that another new chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, perhaps Chapter 17, may need to be added to allow the United States government itself to file a petition under the Bankruptcy Code to utilize the provisions of Section 365.  [See the e-ssay dated January 17, 2005 entitled “America the Bankrupt:  Economics 210 in the Land of the Freeway and the Home of the Brave”.]

Using the Bankruptcy Code is problematic at best.  In effect, the Congress (a legislative body) would pass legislation to allow a Bankruptcy Court (the judicial branch) to make a decision that Congress may be prevented from making itself by another twig of the judicial branch.  Section 365 is binary and only allows a debtor to accept or reject a contract; there is no ready provision to allow a Bankruptcy Court to accept sixty percent (60%) of the pension and other obligations.  Where to file the petition is not clear, the Southern District of New York; the Northern District of Alaska, or elsewhere?  The Bankruptcy Judge has less discretion under the Bankruptcy Code to recognize the decision of the debtor to accept or reject, although he or she may be unwilling to recognize a decision that could threaten his or her pension.

The unfunded and unfounded promises we have made to each other will stagger those who were never consulted.  Or even born.  All government entities in the intermediate term will need to dispense with or limit pension and other obligations.  Addressing the matter in the Bankruptcy Code and in the Bankruptcy Courts is cumbersome and incomplete, yet the approach more easily overcomes the constitutional infirmities that other courts have mistakenly imposed.  At core, as noted previously, the rejection really is not a rejection of pension obligations, it is a refusal to accept obligations the Younger Generation never agreed to undertake nor can reasonably be expected to perform.

Some say: “If we were just informed that our pension and other obligations could disappear or be reduced, we could modify our behavior and decisions now.”  What if someone said: “Your pension and other obligations could disappear or be reduced.”  Despite their protestations, the populace, even when informed, likely will not modify its behavior and decisions.  The answers admittedly are not easy.

Bumper sticker of the week:

There Is No Such Thing As A Free Snack.